Cargando…
Understanding the acceptability, barriers and facilitators for chlamydia and gonorrhoea screening in technical colleges: qualitative process evaluation of the “Test n Treat” trial
BACKGROUND: Low uptake of sexually transmitted infection testing by sexually active young people is a worldwide public health problem. Screening in non-medical settings has been suggested as a method to improve uptake. The “Test n Treat” feasibility trial offered free, on-site rapid chlamydia/gonorr...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7414554/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32770977 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09285-1 |
_version_ | 1783568991189467136 |
---|---|
author | Fleming, Charlotte Drennan, Vari M. Kerry-Barnard, Sarah Reid, Fiona Adams, Elisabeth J. Sadiq, S. Tariq Phillips, Rachel Majewska, Wendy Harding-Esch, Emma M. Cousins, Emma C. Yoward, Freya Oakeshott, Pippa |
author_facet | Fleming, Charlotte Drennan, Vari M. Kerry-Barnard, Sarah Reid, Fiona Adams, Elisabeth J. Sadiq, S. Tariq Phillips, Rachel Majewska, Wendy Harding-Esch, Emma M. Cousins, Emma C. Yoward, Freya Oakeshott, Pippa |
author_sort | Fleming, Charlotte |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Low uptake of sexually transmitted infection testing by sexually active young people is a worldwide public health problem. Screening in non-medical settings has been suggested as a method to improve uptake. The “Test n Treat” feasibility trial offered free, on-site rapid chlamydia/gonorrhoea tests with same day treatment for chlamydia (and gonorrhoea treatment at a local clinic,) to sexually active students (median age 17 years) at six technical colleges in London. Despite high rates of chlamydia (6% prevalence), uptake of testing was low (< 15%). In a qualitative study we explored the acceptability, including barriers and facilitators to uptake, of on-site chlamydia screening. METHODS: In 2016–17 we conducted a qualitative study in the interpretative tradition using face to face or telephone semi-structured interviews with students (n = 26), teaching staff (n = 3) and field researchers (n = 4). Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. RESULTS: From the student perspective, feelings of embarrassment and the potential for stigma were deterrents to sexually transmitted infection testing. While the non-medical setting was viewed as mitigating against stigma, for some students volunteering to be screened exposed them to detrimental judgements by their peers. A small financial incentive to be screened was regarded as legitimising volunteering in a non-discrediting way. Staff and researchers confirmed these views. The very low level of knowledge about sexually transmitted infections influenced students to not view themselves as candidates for testing. There were also suggestions that some teenagers considered themselves invulnerable to sexually transmitted infections despite engaging in risky sexual behaviours. Students and researchers reported the strong influence peers had on uptake, or not, of sexually transmitted infection testing. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers new insights into the acceptability of college-based sexually transmitted infection screening to young, multi-ethnic students. Future studies in similar high risk, hard to reach groups should consider linking testing with education about sexually transmitted infections, offering non stigmatising incentives and engaging peer influencers. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7414554 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74145542020-08-10 Understanding the acceptability, barriers and facilitators for chlamydia and gonorrhoea screening in technical colleges: qualitative process evaluation of the “Test n Treat” trial Fleming, Charlotte Drennan, Vari M. Kerry-Barnard, Sarah Reid, Fiona Adams, Elisabeth J. Sadiq, S. Tariq Phillips, Rachel Majewska, Wendy Harding-Esch, Emma M. Cousins, Emma C. Yoward, Freya Oakeshott, Pippa BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: Low uptake of sexually transmitted infection testing by sexually active young people is a worldwide public health problem. Screening in non-medical settings has been suggested as a method to improve uptake. The “Test n Treat” feasibility trial offered free, on-site rapid chlamydia/gonorrhoea tests with same day treatment for chlamydia (and gonorrhoea treatment at a local clinic,) to sexually active students (median age 17 years) at six technical colleges in London. Despite high rates of chlamydia (6% prevalence), uptake of testing was low (< 15%). In a qualitative study we explored the acceptability, including barriers and facilitators to uptake, of on-site chlamydia screening. METHODS: In 2016–17 we conducted a qualitative study in the interpretative tradition using face to face or telephone semi-structured interviews with students (n = 26), teaching staff (n = 3) and field researchers (n = 4). Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. RESULTS: From the student perspective, feelings of embarrassment and the potential for stigma were deterrents to sexually transmitted infection testing. While the non-medical setting was viewed as mitigating against stigma, for some students volunteering to be screened exposed them to detrimental judgements by their peers. A small financial incentive to be screened was regarded as legitimising volunteering in a non-discrediting way. Staff and researchers confirmed these views. The very low level of knowledge about sexually transmitted infections influenced students to not view themselves as candidates for testing. There were also suggestions that some teenagers considered themselves invulnerable to sexually transmitted infections despite engaging in risky sexual behaviours. Students and researchers reported the strong influence peers had on uptake, or not, of sexually transmitted infection testing. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers new insights into the acceptability of college-based sexually transmitted infection screening to young, multi-ethnic students. Future studies in similar high risk, hard to reach groups should consider linking testing with education about sexually transmitted infections, offering non stigmatising incentives and engaging peer influencers. BioMed Central 2020-08-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7414554/ /pubmed/32770977 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09285-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Fleming, Charlotte Drennan, Vari M. Kerry-Barnard, Sarah Reid, Fiona Adams, Elisabeth J. Sadiq, S. Tariq Phillips, Rachel Majewska, Wendy Harding-Esch, Emma M. Cousins, Emma C. Yoward, Freya Oakeshott, Pippa Understanding the acceptability, barriers and facilitators for chlamydia and gonorrhoea screening in technical colleges: qualitative process evaluation of the “Test n Treat” trial |
title | Understanding the acceptability, barriers and facilitators for chlamydia and gonorrhoea screening in technical colleges: qualitative process evaluation of the “Test n Treat” trial |
title_full | Understanding the acceptability, barriers and facilitators for chlamydia and gonorrhoea screening in technical colleges: qualitative process evaluation of the “Test n Treat” trial |
title_fullStr | Understanding the acceptability, barriers and facilitators for chlamydia and gonorrhoea screening in technical colleges: qualitative process evaluation of the “Test n Treat” trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Understanding the acceptability, barriers and facilitators for chlamydia and gonorrhoea screening in technical colleges: qualitative process evaluation of the “Test n Treat” trial |
title_short | Understanding the acceptability, barriers and facilitators for chlamydia and gonorrhoea screening in technical colleges: qualitative process evaluation of the “Test n Treat” trial |
title_sort | understanding the acceptability, barriers and facilitators for chlamydia and gonorrhoea screening in technical colleges: qualitative process evaluation of the “test n treat” trial |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7414554/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32770977 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09285-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT flemingcharlotte understandingtheacceptabilitybarriersandfacilitatorsforchlamydiaandgonorrhoeascreeningintechnicalcollegesqualitativeprocessevaluationofthetestntreattrial AT drennanvarim understandingtheacceptabilitybarriersandfacilitatorsforchlamydiaandgonorrhoeascreeningintechnicalcollegesqualitativeprocessevaluationofthetestntreattrial AT kerrybarnardsarah understandingtheacceptabilitybarriersandfacilitatorsforchlamydiaandgonorrhoeascreeningintechnicalcollegesqualitativeprocessevaluationofthetestntreattrial AT reidfiona understandingtheacceptabilitybarriersandfacilitatorsforchlamydiaandgonorrhoeascreeningintechnicalcollegesqualitativeprocessevaluationofthetestntreattrial AT adamselisabethj understandingtheacceptabilitybarriersandfacilitatorsforchlamydiaandgonorrhoeascreeningintechnicalcollegesqualitativeprocessevaluationofthetestntreattrial AT sadiqstariq understandingtheacceptabilitybarriersandfacilitatorsforchlamydiaandgonorrhoeascreeningintechnicalcollegesqualitativeprocessevaluationofthetestntreattrial AT phillipsrachel understandingtheacceptabilitybarriersandfacilitatorsforchlamydiaandgonorrhoeascreeningintechnicalcollegesqualitativeprocessevaluationofthetestntreattrial AT majewskawendy understandingtheacceptabilitybarriersandfacilitatorsforchlamydiaandgonorrhoeascreeningintechnicalcollegesqualitativeprocessevaluationofthetestntreattrial AT hardingeschemmam understandingtheacceptabilitybarriersandfacilitatorsforchlamydiaandgonorrhoeascreeningintechnicalcollegesqualitativeprocessevaluationofthetestntreattrial AT cousinsemmac understandingtheacceptabilitybarriersandfacilitatorsforchlamydiaandgonorrhoeascreeningintechnicalcollegesqualitativeprocessevaluationofthetestntreattrial AT yowardfreya understandingtheacceptabilitybarriersandfacilitatorsforchlamydiaandgonorrhoeascreeningintechnicalcollegesqualitativeprocessevaluationofthetestntreattrial AT oakeshottpippa understandingtheacceptabilitybarriersandfacilitatorsforchlamydiaandgonorrhoeascreeningintechnicalcollegesqualitativeprocessevaluationofthetestntreattrial |